It's called the "Matthew Shepard Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009."

All you really need to know to figure out where you stand on this bill, which has already passed the House, thanks to Democratic Party domination, is that it is sponsored by Ted Kennedy.

But that's not the only reason I hate this latest "hate crimes" bill – not by a long shot.

As WND has reported, this one actually offers special protections for pedophiles who are targeted in crimes.

Now, just imagine the horror you might feel as a parent if your child was violated by a child molester – someone who would testify in open court that he or she has an innate sexual predilection for kids.

Before this bill was approved in the House, Republicans tried to amend it to exclude pedophiles from the long list of sexual deviates it protects. Not a single Democrat would go along with the amendment – and at least one, Rep. Alcee Hastings, explicitly affirmed his desire to offer special protection for pedophiles.

By special arrangement through WND, for only $10.95 members of the public can send 100 individually addressed letters to each senator by overnight mail. Each letter is individually "signed" by the sender. The letters ask for a written response and call for opposition to the bill, including by filibuster if necessary. This offer ends tomorrow.

But I have even more reason for opposing this bill.

This bill is about manipulating the public with absolutely false and misleading information.

For instance, who is Matthew Shepard?

One might assume, given the name of this bill, that Shepard was targeted for victimhood because of his sexual proclivities. That assumption is dead wrong.

Shepard was murdered. But not because he was a homosexual.

Shepard, according to the findings of the court, was kidnapped and brutally beaten by Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson after he made a sexual advance at one of the two men at a bar. According to McKinney's then-girlfriend, both men pretended to be homosexual in order to lure Shepard outside and rob him.

Shepard later was found brutally beaten, robbed and tied to a fence. He died five days later of massive head injuries.

"Hate" was not a motivation for the crime. "Love" was the motive – love of money, that is, which the Bible says is the root of all evil.

Nevertheless, Shepard's murder was a national sensation, the impetus for special-circumstance "hate-crime" legislation from coast to coast – even though robbery appeared to be the motive all along.

(Column continues below)

The fact that 11 years later, it is Matthew Shepard's name that is still being used by politicians who want to offer special protections to groups of people based on their aberrant sexual identification should suggest to you that homosexuals and deviants are not being systematically targeted for crimes by those who hate them. In fact, they are more often targeted for crimes by people who share their sexual proclivities.

But, again, I have even more reason for opposing this bill.

Even if the Senate amended this "hate crimes" legislation by removing its special protection for pedophiles, it is wrong and unconstitutional. For any "hate crimes" legislation actually offers punishment unequally. The Constitution provides for "equal protection under the law," not unequal.

"Hate crimes" legislation by definition punishes people not just for the crimes they perpetrate – something we can all agree on – but also punishes them a second time for the way they think. Think about it. "Hate crimes" are actually "thought crimes."

Do we believe in America people should be criminally punished for the way they think? What difference does it make what motivates a criminal? The crime is what we punish, not the motivation. Murder is murder. It should be punished by death. You can't have any stronger punishment than death.

But tougher punishment for real crimes is not what this bill is about. It is about "group rights" – a concept so entirely un-American it ought to make all of us shudder that it is even being debated in the U.S. Senate and approved by the House, let alone on the verge of becoming the illegitimate, unconstitutional "law of the land."